Blog – Blood Lions

Does Bovine Tuberculosis pose a threat to South Africa’s wild lion population?

Supporters of South Africa’s captive lion industry often claim that Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) is a major threat to South Africa’s wild lion population, especially lions in the Kruger National Park (KNP). Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA) have even alleged that an estimated 80% of Kruger’s lions are infected by bTB, risking a population-wide collapse.

Some captive industry associations have even claimed that captive-bred lions present the perfect solution to counter the deaths of wild lions from bTB. But first, it’s necessary to understand if Kruger’s lion population is indeed in danger from bTB based on available scientific evidence.

Disease has been considered a long-term threat to free-roaming wild lion populations, especially bTB in Kruger and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park. Bovine TB spreads across lion populations through infected prey species, particularly buffalo and kudu, according to a PhD study in 2015.

In 2017, the prevalence of bTB infection in lions was an estimated 54% in the southern region of KNP. Research from 2023 suggests that while bTB can impact an individual lion’s health, mortality, and an animal’s ability to hunt and reproduce, it is difficult to determine the impact at a population level. In particular, since extensive ecosystems, such as Kruger, are also affected by drought, long-term environmental changes, and other diseases, there are other factors that impact lion mortality.

A 2015 and 2017 study on the prevalence of bTB in Kruger lions confirms that more research is needed on the impact of bTB on a population level. SANParks ecologist Dr Sam Ferreira and lion biologist Dr Paul Funston concluded in their 2010 paper that the Kruger lion population is stable and the effects of bTB are minimal, particularly on a population level.

In response to a Parliamentary Question in December 2024, the former Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Dr Dion George, stated that “there are currently no visible effects of bTB on the viability of the KNP’s lion population. Prey biomass rather than bTB strongly influences lion survival in the KNP.”

He continues, “while previous forecasts predicted slight long-term declines in the KNP lion population due to TB, these predictions did not hold. Lions displayed resilience, with stable numbers even during droughts, shifting prey preferences to buffalo and kudu.”

In 2024, the Ministerial Task Team states in their final report that “the prevailing view amongst carnivore specialists, in terms of the suitability and necessity of using captive-bred lions for conservation purposes, is that the lack of a safe and suitable habitat for rewilding and population restoration purposes and the adequate availability of wild lions, makes the use of captive-bred lions redundant.”

Former Minister George added in his response to the parliamentary question in December 2024, “there is no need to introduce lions (especially captive-bred lions) into the KNP as the lion population is stable and lions currently occupy most of the available habitat in the KNP.”

The bottom line is that scientists have established that while bTB does impact lions in the Kruger, the effect of the disease does not impact the species at a population level, as many in the commercial captive industry have claimed.

The Kruger lion population is not at risk of dying out, and captive-bred lions would not need to be used to supplement the population. Even IF we had to supplement the Kruger lion population, the availability of South African wild lions is ample and hence there would be absolutely no need to use captive-bred lions, as identified by the Ministerial Task Team.

The captive industry’s claims should not be taken at face value, as these purely suit their narrative, and require careful scientific and public scrutiny.

Is ‘Canned’ Hunting Actually Illegal in South Africa?

Captive predator industry proponents regularly use the narrative that ‘canned’ hunting is illegal in South Africa, but the reality is not what they would like the public to believe.

To quote from a recent media article by Trevor Oertel, “if the Minister [Dion George] wasn’t so emotionally hamstrung by the false animal rights rhetoric of ‘canned hunting’, an immoral practice he of all people should know is illegal in South Africa, we should be celebrating and congratulating ourselves on a conservation success story.”

So let’s interrogate the term ‘canned’ hunting further to see whether or not the industry’s claims are true that ‘canned’ hunting is indeed illegal in South Africa.

What is ‘canned’ hunting?

‘Canned’ hunting is a colloquial term that was used for the first time in 1997 by Roger Cook in The Cook Report documentary “Making a Killing”, which exposed South Africa’s unethical practices of the hunting of captive-bred lions for their trophies.

Although the term became widely used in the years following the documentary, it was never officially defined in policy or legislation. The South African Predator Association (SAPA) subsequently made an attempt to explain The True Meaning of Canned Hunting, but by the end readers are still not fully informed what the term actually means.

Their blog presents one possible definition: “the slaying of a drugged or overly-domesticated lion or a lion lured by food to the killing zone in a featureless, cramped enclosure”. It is important to note, however, that this description has never been formally adopted by the wider wildlife industry, animal welfare sector, conservationists or legislators.

For most people, ‘canned’ hunting simply means the hunting of lions that are bred and raised in captivity and ultimately hunted for their trophy in fenced camps that negate the chance to escape. Other captive-bred big cats, such as leopards, tigers and even caracals and servals, are also killed in such captive hunts.

Art work by Martin Aveling

Does our legislation define ‘canned’ hunting?

Our nature conservation legislation, both the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act of 2004 (NEMBA) and the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations of 2007, do not mention nor define the term ‘canned’ hunting.

In the absence of an official and legal definition, ‘canned’ hunting remains a term that has a different meaning to different people. This is not merely a question of semantics – the term literally has no official description.

Our legislation does, however, refer to a ‘put and take animal’ which means a live specimen of a captive-bred listed large predator that is released for the purpose of hunting the animal within a period of 24 months after its release from a captive environment.

However, the then South African Predator Breeders Association (SAPBA) (now SAPA) took the former Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to court, challenging the definition for a ‘put and take animal’ that set the 24 months minimum release time before a captive-bred lion hunt could take place. SABPA also challenged Section 24 of TOPS (see section below) and the Minister amended the TOPS Regulations in January 2008 deleting lion from the definition for ‘listed large predators’ pending the court application.

In 2010, our Supreme Court of Appeal found TOPS Section 24 invalid if lion was to be included again. The judge stated that there was no scientific evidence showing that captive-bred lions required 24 months to become self-sustaining the wild.

The then Minister left captive-bred lions off the ‘listed large predators’ definition to avoid further litigation.

What provisions does our national legislation make to protect captive-bred lions?

Under NEMBA, lions are listed as ‘vulnerable’, which means that a permit is required under NEMBA if a person intends to carry out any restricted activity involving the species, including being in the possession of, breeding, trading, hunting, transporting, or exporting lions from South Africa.

The TOPS Regulations deal with circumstances under which hunting is prohibited (Section 24) and prohibited methods of hunting (Section 26). For example, Section 26 stipulates that a TOPS listed species may not be hunted if the following methods are utilised, including by means of poison, traps, snares, dogs, darting, an automatic weapon or shotgun. Prohibited hunting methods also include luring the animal with bait, sounds, or smell, by using spotlights, motorised vehicles, or aircraft, under the influence of tranquilising, narcotic, or immobilising agents, and trapped against a fence or in a small enclosure, where the animal does not have a fair chance to escape the hunter. Regulation 24 does not prohibit the hunting of captive-bred lions.

Some of these descriptions are still rather vague and can be interpreted in different ways. Like what is a small enclosure? Does a wild animal need to touch the fence to be considered trapped? What does it mean to give an animal a fair chance to escape the hunter, which is directly correlated to factors like size of an enclosure, the type of vegetation present and its terrain? Can you chase a lion in a vehicle and jump out to make the kill? Unfortunately, none of these terms are properly clarified in our legislation.

What legislative provisions do our provinces make to protect captive-bred lions?

As nature conservation is a concurrent competence and thus falls under both provincial and national legislation in South Africa, the implementation of national legislation may be supported by provincial regulations and policies. This means that all nine provinces can, for example, set their own minimum requirements for captive lion hunts within the broader TOPS guidelines.

Most provinces, except Limpopo, have some policies in place to regulate the captive lion industry. KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape and Western Cape have more stringent regulations compared to all other provinces, with the Northern Cape being the strictest, not allowing any commercial breeding, keeping, hunting or trading of lions.

The hunting of captive-bred lions is allowed in the Free State, North West and Limpopo with the time period between the release of a captive-bred lion into a hunting camp and the hunt taking place being three months, 96 hours and 24 hours, respectively. The other six provinces either don’t support or prohibit the hunting of captive-bred lions.

The minimum size of a hunting camp is 1,000 ha in all three provinces. In the Free State, breeding and hunting cannot take place at the same property and hence most captive lion hunts occur in the North West and Limpopo. A large proportion of lions are bred in the Free State, transported to the North West and Limpopo, where they are released into an enclosure to be killed.

How many captive-bred lions are killed for their trophies?

From the late 1990s, South Africa started exporting hunting trophies from captive-bred lions. Initial export numbers were relatively low with fewer than 100 trophies per year. From 2006, the export volumes increased significantly and peaked in 2015 with 1,061 lion trophies.

Until 2016, about 60% of these captive-bred lion trophies were exported to the USA, when the US Fish and Wildlife Services imposed a ban on the import of trophies from captive-bred lions to the USA.

Since 2016, South Africa still exports on average 430 hunting trophies from the captive-bred lion population every year to countries such as Germany, Spain, Scandinavian countries, and some new destinations like China, Russia and Eastern European countries. Smaller numbers are still entering the USA – between 2016-2021 a total of 528 captive-bred lion trophies.

South Africa’s declared quantities of hunting trophy exports from the captive lion population for the period of 1999−2021 (data from CITES Trade Database).

Source: Ministerial Task Team final report, 2024.

Is the ‘canned’ hunting is illegal narrative a smokescreen to hide ethically contentious hunting practices?

If we are using the SAPA description of ‘canned’ hunting as “the slaying of a drugged or overly-domesticated lion or a lion lured by food to the killing zone in a featureless, cramped enclosure”, then yes that way of killing is illegal. The hunting of a drugged lion, baited by food and/or in a cramped enclosure are indeed prohibited under the TOPS Regulations.

However, ‘canned’ hunting has become widely used as a general term synonymous with the hunting of captive-bred lions, which is currently legal in three of South Africa’s nine provinces.

Unless we have an agreed upon definition of ‘canned’ hunting that has been promulgated in our nature conservation legislation, unsubstantiated claims that ‘canned’ hunting is illegal in South Africa are false, as the term has no statutory meaning. If a term has no legal definition, it can be neither legal nor illegal.

The industry’s claims that ‘canned’ hunting is illegal serve more as a smokescreen behind which they hide ethically contentious hunting practices to normalise and legitimise the hunting of captive-bred lions.

Hence, we shouldn’t be questioning whether or not ‘canned’ hunting is illegal, we should subject the current legal captive-bred lion hunting practices to more scrutiny. These legal hunting practices and the subsequent welfare impacts on the individual animal are far from ideal, while at the same time conservation benefits remain questionable.

We should therefore challenge the conditions under which legal captive-bred lion hunts are carried out in terms of the prohibited hunting methods as listed in Section 26 of TOPS.

This video shows a legal captive lion hunt, where the lion appears to be:

followed by and shot from a vehicle judging by the way the camera is panning, which would be illegal.
trapped against three sides of the fence (clearly visible in the video) in the hunting camp, which, depending on the interpretation of trapped, could be considered as illegal.
killed in a small camp judging by the distance to three sides of the fence, which would be illegal.
killed without a fair chance to escape, depending on the interpretation of fair chance, which could be considered as illegal.

The fact that industry proponents are quick to use unsubstantiated claims, like “‘canned’ hunting is illegal in South Africa” seems a conscious attempt to muddy the waters and distract the conversation from the real issues involved in legal captive hunts. Issues with regards to the lack of clarity around some of the terms, as is shown above, as well as the enforcement of TOPS Regulation 26 of prohibited hunting methods that remains unclear.

Stripes, Manes & Myths: Liger Facts

What are ligers?

Ligers are the offspring of a male lion and a female tiger, whereas the offspring of a male tiger and a female lion are called tigons. Male ligers are commonly sterile, but females can be fertile.

Ligers are generally much larger than their parent cat species due to what is called growth dysplasia. Under natural conditions, the male lion carries a growth-promoting gene and the lioness a growth-inhibiting gene, which counteracts the male gene and keeps the off-spring’s growth in check. However, the liger lacks the growth-inhibiting gene, because the female tiger doesn’t carry such a growth-inhibiting gene. Read more HERE.

In the late 1800s/early 1900s, zoos around the world started breeding ligers for exhibition purposes, including Bloemfontein Zoo where many ligers were born. The most famous Bloemfontein liger was called Tokkelos and allegedly weighed around 360-400 kg!

Welfare issues

Breeding ligers can create a myriad of health issues, including neurological defects, sterility, cancer, arthritis, organ failure, and diminished life expectancy. Many ligers are born with (often fatal) birth defects and their abnormal growth rate puts immense stress on their internal organs and skeleton. In addition, ligers often suffer from obesity.

The tiger mother may experience birth complications, due to the unnaturally large size of her cubs, and C-sections are often required. Furthermore, their behaviour is completely different: lions are social animals and tigers are solitary cats, making it difficult for a hybrid to interact with its peers.

Can ligers exist in the wild?

The vast majority of lions and tigers cannot mate in wild, as they are geographically spread across different continents (Africa vs Asia). Hence, lions and tigers do not co-exist in the same habitat and their behavioural differences also prevent them from cohabiting, i.e. lions are social and tigers are solitary cats.

There is a small population of lions in Gir National Park (India) that live in the same protected area as tigers, where theoretically ligers could exist in the wild. However, there is no proof that ligers exist here naturally or have ever existed in the wild on the Indian continent. Even if breeding in the wild could occur, this goes against the natural rule of the survival of the fittest, as it would result in compromised genetics that would make the species less likely to survive.

What is hybridisation and how does it occur?

Hybridisation (or “interbreeding”) means the cross-breeding of individuals from two different species, subspecies, breeds, or varieties. The individuals are generally related (of the same genus) but are genetically different species. Hybridisation results in decreased genetic diversity. Human intervention is the primary cause of hybridisation. The hybridisation of lions and tigers are solely due to accidental or purposeful mating in captivity.

Since most male hybrids are born sterile, and the lineage stops with the offspring. Additionally, offspring that are not sterile would not share breeding traits, geographical ranges, or reproductive characteristics with potential mates in a wild setting. This would only occur in forced captive situations. For all these reasons, captive-bred hybrids have no conservation value.

Hybrids such as ligers are bred in captivity purely for commercial gain and human entertainment.

They have no conservation value. Efforts should instead focus on the conservation of lions and tigers in the wild.

Thousands of predators are exploited for commercial gain in South Africa – not only lions.

According to a Daily Maverick article, South Africa is one of the top 3 suppliers to the global wildlife trade. Despite being legal, loopholes are often exploited, and conservation regulations are bypassed. Between 2013 and 2023, South Africa legally exported more than 16 million live wild animals, including millions of birds and fish, and tens of thousands of reptiles and mammals.

What does this mean for indigenous and exotic predators (other than lions), such as leopards, cheetahs, caracals, servals, and tigers, bred commercially in captivity in South Africa?

How many other predators are bred in captivity in South Africa?

We know that South Africa breeds a significant number of predators commercially, in addition to lions. In 2023, the Ministerial Task Team (MTT) did a national audit of all other predators in captivity, in addition to lions.

South Africa holds at least 2,018 leopards, cheetahs, caracals, servals, and tigers, with the Free State and North West provinces holding the majority of these predators for commercial purposes. But in reality, the numbers are most likely higher since some provinces chose not to provide the MTT with the requested data on the number of captive predators.

The minimum number of tigers, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, and servals held in captivity in South Africa’s commercial captive predators breeding industry in September 2023 and the province with the highest number of the predator. (Source: Ministerial Task Team final report)

How many captive predators are exported from South Africa?

To answer this question, we looked at data from the CITES Trade Database for the period of 2013 to 2023. The data includes only captive or captive-bred predators exported from South Africa dead or alive. The CITES database also provides information on the importing country and the purpose of the export, amongst other information.

Over the 10-years period, South Africa exported 3,536 live and 269 dead predators, mostly as trophies from captive or ”canned” hunts, other than lions. The majority of live exports were caracals and servals, with tiger trophies and skins topping exports of body parts and derivatives.

Number of captive-bred tigers, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, and servals exported from South Africa dead or alive for the period of 2013 to 2023. (Source: CITES Trade Database)

What countries import South African captive-bred predators?

When we looked at the countries that import South Africa’s captive-bred predators, a handful are repeatedly found in the Top 5 importing countries across the five species, namely China, the USA, India, Indonesia, and Thailand.

For tigers, the Top 5 importing countries are China, Vietnam, Thailand, India and Pakistan. Many of these Southeast Asian countries not only have a track record of poor animal welfare, but are also among the top consumer countries of lion and tiger products for traditional medicinal purposes, like tiger and lion bone wine.

Top 5 importing countries of captive-bred tigers, leopards, cheetahs, caracals, and servals from South Africa, dead or alive, for the period of 2013 to 2023. (Source: CITES Trade Database)

It’s legal, but what about animal welfare?

Recently, we looked at animal sentience and its link to animal welfare and well-being. We interrogated how animal welfare is compromised for lions throughout their captive lifecycle, from birth to death. All of this not only applies to lions in captivity but to all other captive predators, especially tigers, who have a very similar captive lifecycle to lions in South Africa.

In addition, the live export of predators raises even further animal well-being concerns. Considerations include the physical and mental implications of being crated for extended periods during transport, the time spent in quarantine, and the conditions of the quarantine facilities. How many animals die during the transportation process is something that CITES does not monitor.

Despite CITES’ mandate to regulate the legal trade of wildlife, they do not monitor what actually happens to these predators once they arrive at their destination. What is the real destiny of a tiger that is listed on the CITES database as exported for zoological purposes to Vietnam? Will it end up in a zoo and under what conditions or is it killed in a backstreet abattoir for its bones, teeth, claws, skin and meat?

Stay tuned as we delve into some of these animal welfare and well-being issues for the often overlooked captive-bred predators in South Africa over the next few weeks.

Play

What does science tell us about depression in animals?

What does science tell us about depression in animals?

While many stakeholders in the commercial wildlife industry believe that animals respond to their environments based on instincts alone, science has demonstrated that animals can experience depression-like behaviours. This information is not new as an early (and highly unethical) study conducted in the late 1960s by Martin Seligman, an American psychologist, showed that dogs subjected to unavoidable electrical shocks gave up trying to escape their environments after repeated exposure. The phenomenon was termed ‘learned helplessness’ and became an important model for understanding depression in humans and animals.

What does ‘learned helplessness’ mean?

‘Learned helplessness’ occurs when an animal is repeatedly exposed to stressful situations outside of their control. Eventually these animals cease trying to escape their situations. Sadly, even when escape from long-term and repeated exposure to a stressful situation eventually stops, animals experiencing ‘learned helplessness’ may not even attempt to escape.

How does this relate to depression in animals?

Although Seligman’s study was extremely cruel and unethical, the concept of ‘learned helplessness’ became an important model for understanding the behavioural responses of people (and animals) to depression. It’s a powerful indication that chronic, uncontrollable stressful situations can lead to severe and lasting behavioural and neurochemical changes.

‘Learned helplessness’ can be seen in passive behaviour, a lack of motivation, and feelings of pessimism that things will never change for the better. In animals, scientists have found that those who display signs of ‘learned helplessness’ even have altered brain chemistry and behaviours similar to people experiencing depression.

Do animals in captivity experience depression and learned helplessness?

Science shows that wild animals kept in captivity can experience severe environmental deprivation, a lack of control, and long-term exposure to stress, all of which can lead to depression-like behaviours associated with ‘learned helplessness’, such as the following:

Animals showing signs of depression actually mirror what we see in humans experiencing depression, including neurochemical changes in serotonin (implicated in depression) and cortisol (the stress hormone), and neurological changes in brain function and structure.

What does depression look like in captive animals?

The general public often miss the signs of depression in animals kept in captivity, but the following are strong indicators that an animal is experiencing chronic stress and ‘learned helplessness’:

Animals kept in captivity show these behaviours because captive environments do not provide mental and physical stimulation, they feel isolated from members of their own species, and because they simply cannot escape their stressful environments.

What does this mean for the welfare of predators kept in captivity?

Captive facilities are by their very nature artificial environments that confine and restrict an animal’s ability to engage in natural behaviours. For predators, like lions and tigers, one of their most inherent behaviours – hunting – is impeded. They are robbed of their ability to roam their territories, hunt prey, and socialise with their own species in ways that are natural to them. Predators kept in captivity often exhibit signs that their environments are harming their well-being and quality of life. By supporting commercial captive facilities, we are failing to genuinely consider wild animals’ quality of life. Even if overt cruelty and neglect is not occuring in a commercial captive facility, captive predators quietly endure stressful and inadequate conditions from birth to death. One or two negative conditions may not feel harmful to the animal’s overall welfare state, but the cumulative impact over its entire life can turn into serious depression and severely affect a captive animal’s quality of life.

Is animal welfare compromised throughout a captive lion’s life – from birth to death?

So far in this campaign, we have been looking at animal sentience and how it underpins the way we understand welfare, and how South Africa’s legislation deals with this.

In our first Animal Sentience blog, we established that many animals, including predators like lions, are sentient beings and therefore experience a range of feelings, including pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, excitement, cold, pain, anxiety, distress, boredom, hunger, thirst etc.

By recognising animal sentience, we highlight the importance of the physical and mental welfare and well-being of animals – terms that more or less mean the same thing. The responsibility for the welfare and well-being of any wild animal in captivity falls squarely onto the owner or caretaker of those animals.

It is important to recognise that many wild animals in captivity cannot fulfill their natural needs, as they would in the wild. For example, predators’ prime survival strategy – hunting – is a large part of their natural makeup that they are not able to perform in captivity.

How do we assess animal welfare and well-being?

To assess the state of an animal’s welfare, the internationally recognised Five Domains Model is often used. This model looks at all aspects of an animal’s functioning – their nutrition, environment, physical health, behaviour, and how all four come together to shape an animal’s mental state.

What does this mean for South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry?

South Africa’s commercial captive lion industry is widely accused, including by the NSPCA, High-Level Panel and Ministerial Task Team, of lacking adherence to appropriate welfare standards. Over the years, the media has covered multiple stories of severe animal cruelty and neglect of predators and other wild animals kept in captivity facilities for mostly commercial purposes.

So much necessary attention has been given to these cases of severe animal cruelty and neglect, but is animal welfare compromised in a more systemic way across this exploitative industry?

Are captive facilities, including predator parks and self-proclaimed sanctuaries, also compromising animal welfare and well-being in less obvious ways?

For these questions to be answered, we will use the Five Domains Model to delve into animal welfare and well-being across the many stages of lions’ captive lives by unraveling the complex needs of these wild predators in captivity, and the many ways in which owners fail to provide for those needs.

Lifecycle of a Captive Lion.

What are the welfare implications of removing lion cubs prematurely from their mother?

Lion cubs are routinely removed from their mothers from hours to days after birth, to be bottle-fed and hand-reared by paying volunteers and visitors, who are inexperienced and unqualified animal caretakers. The cubs are fed cow’s milk or milk replacers lacking essential nutrients, vitamins and antibodies.

Cubs are generally kept in unsuitable, small and barren enclosures with other cubs of similar ages and sometimes even in mixed species-groups (like lions and tigers together), in the absence of adults of their own kind and the love and safety of their mother.

These adverse physical conditions lead to feelings of pain, sickness, weakness, nausea, discomfort, fear, anxiety, panic, insecurity, confusion, loneliness and even depression, which in turn severely compromises their overall quality of life.

For example, malnutrition and malnourishment as a result of inadequate milk substitutes can cause severe developmental issues such as rickets, deformed spines, weak immunity to diseases, and stomach problems. These formulas are typically higher in sugar content than the mother’s milk would be, which can cause poor eyesight. On top of all this, volunteers and paying visitors don’t adhere to strict hygiene protocols and appropriate feeding which can cause diarrhea and dehydration in the cubs.

Not only is the food inadequate, but bottle feeding by those who are inexperienced and unqualified means that cubs are at risk of gulping air or too much milk, leading to aspiration pneumonia, colic, and pain. Being handled after feeding means cubs can vomit, and even inhale it back in when fed in the incorrect position.

Mother lions provide essential physical protection even in the form of bodily heat. Newborn lions are not able to thermoregulate and are at risk of being too cold or too hot, especially when exposed to artificial heat lamps. Just like many of us may have seen in very young puppies and kittens, mothers need to stimulate infants to urinate and defecate. Without this done correctly, cubs may experience urinary blockages, constipation and gut impaction, all of which can lead to death.

Cubs stay with their prides until the age of two years so they can learn everything they need to survive in the wild. In captivity, especially with cubs being removed from their mothers they often cannot even get enough sleep, especially the beneficial kind known as REM sleep (or Rapid Eye Movement that occurs in deep sleep). Frequent handling and a lack of sleep stunts body growth and mental development.

What are the welfare implications of petting a lion cub?

Inexperienced and unqualified visitors and volunteers pay for the experience of bottle-feeding so-called “orphaned” lion cubs. They are handled by visitors for up to eight hours per day, during a time when they should be playing with their siblings and mother, resting and sleeping. They are often kept in inappropriate, barren and noisy petting enclosures with extreme restricted choices.

These adverse physical conditions lead to feelings of malaise, exhaustion, physical weakness, poor physical development, fear, anxiety, panic, insecurity, confusion, loneliness, anger and even depression. These negative implications on their mental state severely compromises their overall quality of life.

Once cubs are separated from their mother and moved into cub petting enclosures, their barren environments do not provide opportunities for them to thrive. The lack of age-appropriate movement results in poor muscle development and coordination. Cuddling cubs may seem innocent, but at this stage of their lives, their bones are soft and unfused, heightening the risk of bone fractures through being poorly handled or accidentally dropped, especially when human children are allowed to handle cubs. Think about a lioness carrying her cub in the wild – only slightly off the ground and held carefully by the scruffs of their necks. Visitors and volunteers may turn cubs on their backs, pick them up high off the ground, and hold them in ways that are frightening.

Without the pride’s dynamics, cubs grow up without an understanding of species-appropriate behaviour. Some cubs may become scared and withdrawn while others might become aggressive and dominate more submissive cubs.

What is the most responsible photo you can take?
The one of a cub you didn’t touch.
The one of a cub lying safely beside its mother, where it belongs in the wild.

What are the welfare implications of speeding breeding lions in captivity?

To meet the demand for a continuous supply of lion cubs entering the commercial wildlife industry means that breeders ensure the lionesses produce as many offspring as possible in order to optimise their income. These females are used as breeding machines in a process that is often referred to as speed breeding.

Speed breeding essentially means that every time a lioness has a litter, her cubs are pulled away only hours to days after birth. This ensures that the lioness goes back into oestrus far earlier than she would in the wild and can become pregnant again within weeks. Through speed breeding a captive lioness can have up to four to five times more litters in her lifetime compared to a lioness under natural conditions.

However, the impact of such frequent pregnancies and giving birth has serious consequences for the lioness’ health. Her physical condition will deteriorate and her mental well-being will suffer due to her body going through the stress of pregnancy and the emotional trauma of her cubs being removed from her again and again.

Added to the physical stress of pregnancy, captive lions are often fed inadequate diets of broiler chickens, supplemented by some beef, horse or donkey meat when available. Chicken is a non-red meat that lacks essential vitamins, minerals and protein to sustain the mother and her unborn cubs during these repeated pregnancies.

The mother’s health is further impacted by hormonal imbalances from not being able to nurse her cubs and the damage to her reproductive system due to the unnatural high number of pregnancies. The physical effects, pain and discomfort all take an enormous mental toll on lionesses, leading to fear, anxiety and learned helplessness, or depression.

What are the welfare implications of slaughter and “canned” hunting?

As we have seen in the above welfare implications of captive lions, by the time lions enter the stage in their lifecycle of slaughter or “canned” hunting, they have already suffered years of captivity in often substandard conditions impacting on their welfare and well-being.

Slaughter

Since 2019, the international export of lion skeletons is no longer legal, as the Government has not set a CITES annual quota for lion bones. However, captive-bred lions are still killed for their bones, body parts and derivatives and therefore their physical appearance is of no significance. Many of these lions are underfed and suffer from malnutrition for considerable parts of their lives.

Just before slaughter these lions have been known to be kept in small crates without water and food for more than two days, left waiting to be killed. These lions suffer from thirst, hunger, anxiety and even panic. The slaughter itself happens generally by shooting the lions through the ear without any kind of sedation in order to cause the least damage to the skeleton. This can cause the lions to feel extreme fear and panic, and excruciating pain.

“Canned” or captive hunting

Captive lions are often bred specifically to be hunted under captive or “canned” conditions. Since trophy hunters target aesthetically pleasing and large animals, lions destined for such hunts are bred for characteristically large manes, their size, and even colour, in the case of white lions. Their physical appearance is of utmost importance to hunters, so breeders may provide better care to ensure the animals appear to be in good physical health.

However, even if lions going into “canned” hunts are fed and kept in better condition than those bred for bones and parts, their deaths are often cruel and prolonged. In the Limpopo and North West provinces, legislation allows for lions to be released only 24 to 96 hours prior to a hunt taking place. These lions are released into slightly larger enclosures and then pursued from a vehicle, something captive lions have learnt to associate with feeding time. Footage has demonstrated on several occasions that hunters engaging in “canned” hunts are often less skilled and physically able, resulting in wounded animals that need to be shot multiple times to kill them. More disturbingly, lions used for “canned” hunting have no means of escape and other examples of footage have shown callous behaviour in which hunters have pursued lions in trees and burrows. Lions being pursued by hunters in this manner experience not only an excruciating death, but feel immense panic and fear leading up to their death.

Animal Welfare – #TheyFeelToo

Animal Welfare – Why Should We Care?

In our animal sentience blog, we looked among others at how recognition of animal sentience has created a radical shift, not only in the way we view the moral status of animals, but also how we provide for and ensure their welfare and well-being.

What is Animal Welfare and Well-Being?

According to the World Organisation for Animal Health, animal welfare means “the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies”. It generally refers to issues like humane treatment, standards of care that an animal receives as well as the conditions in which it lives.

Animal well-being takes animal welfare one step further and considers the overall state of an animal’s mind and body, including the physiological, behavioural and emotional aspects.

Animal well-being doesn’t just ensure the absence of animal suffering, it creates the right circumstances for non-human animals to thrive.

In South Africa’s environmental legislation, animal well-being is defined as “the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal, which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including the ability to cope with its environment”.

How do we Assess an Animal’s Quality of Life?

The recognition of animal sentience and welfare are relatively new and with that our human attitudes towards the treatment of animals have changed over the last 30 years or so.

Whereas for example South Africa’s Animals Protection Act of 1962 still seeks to prevent cruelty to animals, the more modern animal welfare approach aims to provide animals with a quality of life.

The Five Domains Model is a globally accepted model for animal welfare assessment based on sound scientific evidence, considering five key areas: four functional domains (nutrition, physical environment, health, and behavioural interactions) and a fifth domain of the animal’s mental state.

Domain 1 – Nutrition focuses on ensuring the animal has access to sufficient, species-appropriate, and balanced food and water to meet their needs.
Domain 2 – Environment underlines the need to provide a safe and comfortable environment that allows animals to thrive, including appropriate temperature, shelter, space, and the absence of external stresses.
Domain 3 – Health focuses on preventing and treating diseases and injuries, ensuring animals are in good physical condition and free from pain and discomfort.
Domain 4 – Behaviour ensures that animals are free to express their natural behaviours, including social interactions, exploration, and other species-typical activities.
Domain 5 – Mental State considers the animal’s subjective experiences, including emotions and feelings like thirst, hunger, anxiety, fear, pain, distress and is closely linked to the four functional domains. The mental domain aims to create positive mental states while avoiding the negative ones.

How do the Functional Domains Impact on the Mental State of an Animal?

The four functional domains focus on conditions that create either negative or positive experiences and they all contribute to the animal’s mental state. All of these are ultimately essential for the survival and well-being of the animal.

Nutrition: When an animal has no water, it will feel thirsty. It has no food or too little, it will feel hungry. When a lion cub is given milk replacers, it may feel weak or unwell. If they have a lack of variety in food or presented in an unimaginative way, the animal will feel bored.

Remember, a captive wild animal can not go in search of water and captive predators are unable to hunt for food.

Environment: When an animal does not have enough space to move around, it will feel stiff. If they have insufficient shelter from the elements, it will feel hot, or cold, or wet, and unwell as a result. If prey and predator species are housed next to each other, the prey animal will feel anxiety and fear.

Health: When an injury goes untreated, the animal will feel pain, maybe even nausea or dizziness. If it is ill, it could feel weak and unwell.

Behaviour: The behavioural domain has three components:

Interaction with the environment.
Interaction with other animals.
Interaction with humans.

For example, if a predator lives in a barren enclosure with no enrichment, it will feel bored and helpless. It could even become depressed. If a social animal like a lion lives in solitary confinement, it will feel lonely and frustrated and may become depressed. If an animal is treated in a cruel or callous manner, it can be fearful or withdrawn, and may attack out of fear.

Ensuring an appropriate level of animal welfare and well-being is not only an ethical matter. For example, preventing the spread of disease creates a better quality of life for animals and reduces public human health risks at the same time. Treating animals with respect also fosters empathy and compassion in people, which in turn contributes to positive mental health and social well-being in our society.

What do the experts have to say?

Play

I want to see a big cat up close, but should I?

How can we tell if a captive facility is one that we should support or avoid? With so many predator parks calling themselves sanctuaries or claiming to rescue their animals, how can we be certain that the facility is ethical or not?

South Africa has close to 400 captive predator parks, most of which are purely commercial, or at a minimum designed to earn a profit from their animals. This has resulted in an rampant industry that keeps approximately 8,000 lions, 600+ tigers, 500 cheetahs, 300 leopards, and 1,000s of other predators all in captivity.

To help you better understand what unethical and profit-driven predator parks look like, read on to learn more about the captive Red Flags.

Animal Sentience – #TheyFeelToo

On a regular basis people with stakes in the wildlife industry argue that animals operate purely based on instincts and survival mechanisms and do not have “emotions or morals as humans do”. They claim that projecting feelings onto wild animals in particular distorts our view of their behaviour, which in turn can hinder effective conservation efforts or appropriate care.

Do non-human animals operate solely on instinct, on fight or flight response and other survival mechanisms or can we attribute more human-like capabilities to animals?

Do they feel too?

For those questions we turn to science and investigate the phenomenon of animal sentience.

What is Animal Sentience?

When people speak of animal sentience or of sentient beings, they generally refer to the capacity of an animal to have subjective experiences.

But what does that actually mean?

The word sentience comes from the Latin word sentire which means to feel. When we hone in on this notion of animal sentience and their ability to have subjective experiences, we identify that these can be good or bad feelings, such as pleasure, warmth, joy, comfort, excitement, pain, anxiety, distress, boredom, hunger, and thirst. For social species like lions, this includes the ability to form social bonds.

After a long history of instilling the notion that animals have no cognisance and therefore feel no pain or experience no suffering, the 18th Century English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, said “the question is not Can they reason? or Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”

This started a long lasting ethics debate amongst philosophers and other intellectuals wrestling with the concept of animals having feelings. A modern day philosopher, Peter Singer, defined sentience in 1979 as “the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness”.

Fast forward 40 years and animal welfare science and bioethics pioneer, Emeritus Professor David J. Mellor, describes sentience as the capacity of animals to consciously perceive by the senses and to consciously feel or experience subjectively. The capacity of animals to experience feelings and emotions includes both positive and negative sensations.

Which Non-Human Animals are Sentient?

There are three criteria generally used in recognising whether or not an animal is sentient: behavioural, evolutionary, and physiological.

In 2012, the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness reached a scientific consensus that humans are not the only sentient beings. A body of evidence was developing showing that other non‐human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, like octopuses possess neurological substrates complex enough to support conscious experiences.

Scientists are still not in agreement when it comes to the sentience of fish and invertebrates. There is evidence that some fish for example can experience pain and thus sentience.

There are also ongoing debates around the sentience of insects. Insects and in particular bees have shown surprisingly complex behaviour and cognitive abilities and some scientists argue that they are capable of subjective experiences.

Is Animal Sentience Anthropomorphism?

Unfortunately, non-human animals don’t speak our language and are thus unable to convey their feelings coherently to us. However, that does not automatically make animal sentience anthropomorphism, which is to attribute human thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviours to non-human animals.

Animal sentience is a phenomenon that can be studied and understood through scientific observations and experiments to more comprehensively understand animal behaviour and emotions based on evidence, rather than solely relying on human projections.

Why is it Important to Recognise Animal Sentience?

The recognition of animal sentience over the last three decades has created a radical shift not only in the way we view the moral status of animals, but also how we provide for and ensure their welfare and well-being. Recognising animal sentience is crucial for animal welfare, as it underscores the importance of considering not only the physical but also the mental well-being of non-human animals.

With this recognition comes a need to move beyond simply ensuring the absence of animal suffering and move towards securing an ability for non-human beings to thrive.

Sanctuary vs Captive Facility: Key differences you need to know

What comes to mind when we use the term ‘captive facility’? What about the word ‘sanctuary’? It’s likely that two vastly different images of the animals in these places appeared in your mind when you read those words.

A captive facility immediately brings to mind animals in cages and small enclosures, substandard care, and a general sense of lacking well-being. A sanctuary elicits thoughts of care, compassion, a love for the animals.

But, does calling a captive facility a sanctuary make it more ethical?

It’s not surprising that it has become confusing for tourists and visitors to understand the difference between a sanctuary and commercial captive facility, or when facility owners themselves blur the distinction between what is ethical and unethical.

In South Africa, a facility may call themselves a sanctuary without having to actually comply with international sanctuary standards. In essence, a zoo, petting facility, or even a breeding facility, might choose to add ‘sanctuary’ to their name, dubiously making the public believe they are operating as a rescue or place of refuge for abandoned, abused, or neglected animals.

According to NEMBA, a sanctuary is considered a facility that provides permanent care to threatened or protected species, like for example lions, that could not sustain themselves in the wild. However this definition is far too broad and does not encompass a no breeding, no interaction or no trade policies, higher standards of care, including living conditions, veterinary care, and other examples that improve an animal’s quality of life. This loophole allows commercial facilities operating for profit to call themselves sanctuaries even though they are breeding, are still buying and selling animals and the animals are used for entertainment purposes.

The truth, unfortunately, is that more often than not, these facilities are operating for commercial gain under the guise of rescuing and homing the animals in their care. The reality is that in South Africa we only have a handful of genuine sanctuaries who operate purely for the care of their animals. In these sanctuaries, the animals are not bought and sold; there is no breeding; no interaction; the animals have options to hide from tourist views; and no activities are conducted that negatively impact the well-being of the animals.

To make this distinction clearer, we need to first look at the non-negotiable criteria to which genuine sanctuaries should adhere:

A genuine sanctuary does not breed with any wildlife: Breeding predators, such as lions, tigers, and other big cats, has long been established by experts as a practice that does not contribute to conservation in the wild. These animals could never be successfully released into functioning ecosystems and would therefore simply be added to the captive life cycle. There are only a few examples of breeding wild animals for genuine, wild conservation purposes.
A genuine sanctuary does not trade in animals: the buying and selling of wild animals between facilities is not allowed as a sanctuary. Unfortunately, many captive facilities claim to have ‘rescued’ their animals, making it vital that visitors question the authenticity of these claims: Where were the animals rescued from? Under what circumstances? Was money exchanged for the animals? Were they bred initially for commercial purposes? Will they have a forever home?
A genuine sanctuary does never allow human-animal interactions: it has been established by welfare experts that human-animal interactions with wild animals is harmful to their well-being. The stress caused by a stream of paying visitors to touch, feed, and cuddle is unnatural and damaging to the animal’s welfare. In addition, once they are too big and dangerous to play with, they are often sold to another facility to become part of the life cycle of a captive lion.
A genuine sanctuary provides a lifelong home for animals: the animals in a sanctuary are often rehomed from abusive and neglectful conditions and given a second chance. They are placed in the biggest possible enclosures that mimic natural conditions, including lots of trees or shrubs, natural hiding spots, water, varied and quality food, etc. Wooden platforms and concrete places to sleep are not natural or adequate by any means. Captive facilities create conditions that to make the viewing of the animals as easy as possible. In many cases, the animals rarely have a chance to retreat, adding further stress to their living conditions. Many captive facilities rely on cheap sources of protein, such as chicken carcasses or donated older meat, to keep costs to a minimum.

So, if a facility calls themselves a sanctuary, what warning signs should we look out for?

Physical / hands-on interactions: hand feeding, petting, and walking are activities sanctuaries would never engage in. Even if only the owner or caretaker interacts with the animals, this is still a sign that people’s interest is prioritised over the animal’s well-being.
Enclosure size and quality: each province has set guidelines regarding the minimum enclosure size for lions and other big cats. This does not mean to say provincial guidelines have the animals’ welfare at heart, but small enclosures that do not allow for freedom of movement are a serious red flag. The cleanliness is also important – are there bones, feathers, and old pieces of meat and faeces lying around? Are the enclosures or cages bare, lacking in trees, climbing opportunities, and natural hiding spots? What is the substrate the animals live on?
Feeding quality: what does the animals’ diet consist of and how often are they fed? Is feeding part of the tourist experience? Do the animals look obese or extremely thin? Is their diet largely unvaried and consists solely of donated dead chickens, this is a major health concern.
Behaviour: snarling, pacing and other repetitive stereotypic behaviours, such as mouthing or chewing at fences/bars, self-mutilation (plucking, biting, etc), swimming in circles, excessive sleeping, and swaying are signs of severe distress.
Health: do the animals have scars and/or injuries, such as cuts and bite wounds, which can be from fighting? Are they surrounded by flies? Do they appear to have missing fur and black patches on their bodies, which could be mange?

Why is this so problematic?

The sad reality is that genuine sanctuaries exist due to the abusive and exploitative conditions in the commercial captive predator industry, including circuses and zoos globally. While genuine sanctuaries do great welfare work for the animals in their care, their existence should not be necessary if wild animals were not kept in captive conditions in the first place and particularly in neglectful and abusive situations.

In addition to the welfare concerns of wild animals in captivity, another reason these blurred lines are so problematic is that it misdirects necessary funds and attention from genuine conservation initiatives.

When well-meaning members of the public donate resources, time, and funds, or just pay entry fees, to commercial captive facilities portraying themselves as sanctuaries, genuine conservation efforts lose out. In the absence of a commercial captive predator industry, more funding can be made available for genuine wildlife conservation on the ground.

It falls upon us to critically and consciously wade through the muddy waters created by captive predator owners and influencers who misdirect our attention through the use of misleading language to pull at the heartstrings of those who unknowingly support illegitimate sanctuaries and conservation efforts.